Real-world evidence of NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron, in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention: effects on quality of life

How do patients with head and neck cancer and low skeletal muscle mass experience cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) face several physical, emotional, and psychological challenges throughout treatment. Cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is an effective but toxic treatment, with an increased risk for toxicities in patients with low skeletal muscle mass (SMM). Consequently, these patients are anticipated to experience greater treatment-related difficulties. We aimed to explore the experiences of patients with HNSCC and low SMM regarding cisplatin-based CRT.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study was conducted, interviewing seven patients 3 months after CRT using a topic guide. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews was conducted, to create a multi-dimensional understanding of patients' experiences during and after cisplatin-based CRT.

RESULTS

Prior to CRT themes included pre-treatment information, expectations towards treatment and trial, psychosocial circumstances, and supporting network. During CRT themes included toxicities, psychosocial impact, and supporting network. After CRT themes included reflection on period during CRT, psychosocial circumstances, informal support from networks and healthcare workers, and ongoing toxicities.

CONCLUSION

Most patients experience cisplatin-based CRT as a life-changing and distressing life event but cope through various strategies and supporting networks. Tailored counseling, ideally with on-demand consultations, is recommended. No differences were noted in patients' perceptions of their cisplatin regimen.

Integrating nutrition, physical exercise, psychosocial support and antiemetic drugs into CINV management: The road to success

Over the years, advancements in antiemetic drugs have improved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control. However, despite the antiemetics therapies, in a relevant number of adult patients (∼30 %), CINV is still persistent, leading to several complications, such as electrolyte imbalances, anorexia, and treatment discontinuation. Supportive care interventions have gained credibility in cancer care, helping to improve patients' psycho-physical condition, quality of life, and managing symptoms, including CINV. Physical exercise and tailored nutritional counseling have demonstrated benefits in reducing the severity of nausea and vomiting. Psychological intervention has been postulated as a key approach in controlling anticipatory nausea/vomiting, as well as acupuncture/acupressure has been shown to decrease nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy treatments. In the current review, we aim to provide a clinical update on current prophylactic and delayed antiemetic guidelines for CINV and an overview of the non-pharmacological interventions tested for alleviating CINV in patients with cancer.

Assessment of the change of antiemetic prophylaxis from double to triple combination in patients with high dose carboplatin chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the adverse events that most affects oncologic patients' quality of life. Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 belongs to agents with high emetic risk (moderate risk in ASCO guidelines). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of netupitant/palonosetron and dexamethasone triple combination (TC) therapy versus ondansetron and dexamethasone double combination (DC) therapy as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. As a secondary endpoint, in TC group we evaluated the effectiveness of changing NEPA administration timing from 1 h to 15 min before chemotherapy.

METHODS

Open-label prospective study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in patients receiving carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. CINV was evaluated using MASCC antiemetic tool, in acute (<24 h) and delayed phase (24-120 h). Results were analyzed using χ2 test.

RESULTS

Two-hundred four completed questionnaires (CQ) were analyzed (76 in DC and 128 in TC). The proportion of patients who remained emesis-free was superior for TC-treated group compared to DC, either in acute (99.2% vs 92.1%, p = 0.0115) and delayed phase (97.6% vs 90.7%, p = 0.043). Likewise, a higher proportion of TC-treated patients compared to DC remained nausea-free for the first 24 h after treatment (90.6% vs 71%, p = 0.0004) and between 24 and 120 h (82.3% vs 62.7%, p = 0.0025). The change of NEPA administration time showed similar effectiveness in terms of CINV control (81.6% vs 74.5%, p = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

TC showed superiority in early and delayed CINV control in carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 regimens, with no significant differences among cancer types. Change in NEPA administration timing has beneficial implications; it allows NEPA to be administered at hospitals before chemotherapy session.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R-CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R-CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles.

An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Observational Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Akynzeo® in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in India

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common and unpleasant treatment-related side effect reported by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Akynzeo® or NEPA (NEtupitant + PAlonosetron) is the first fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron that targets both critical pathways involved in emesis while providing a convenient, single oral dose therapy. The current study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of NEPA in a real-world setting in India. Methodology This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm study conducted at six different locations across India. The study included patients of either gender, aged ≥18 years, naive to chemotherapy, scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC), and scheduled to receive oral NEPA, as determined by the investigator. Results A total of 360 people were screened and enrolled in the study. HEC was prescribed to 289 (81.64%) patients, while MEC was prescribed to 65 (18.36%) patients. Complete response was achieved in 94.92% of patients during the acute phase, 95.20% during the delayed phase, and 93.22% during the overall phase. During the overall phase, 92.73% and 95.38% of patients on the HEC and MEC regimens, respectively, achieved complete response. Adverse events were reported in 3.88% of patients. Conclusions Oral NEPA was found to be effective in the Indian real-world setting, eliciting a >90% complete response with HEC and MEC regimens across the acute, delayed, and overall phases.

Real-world outcomes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the biosimilar era

Background

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive and the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The clinical use of rituximab has improved the treatment response and survival of patients with DLBCL. The introduction of rituximab biosimilar into healthcare system has helped in providing a cost-effective treatment to B-cell lymphoid malignancies as standard of care and has improved access to patients worldwide. The aim of this study was to observe the real-world effectiveness and safety of Reditux™ and Ristova® in DLBCL patients.

Methods

Observational study in adults with DLBCL receiving Reditux™ or Ristova® across 29 centers in India (2015-2022). Effectiveness and safety were assessed up to 2 years after first dose.

Results

Out of 1,365 patients considered for analysis, 1,250 (91.6%) were treated with Reditux™ and 115 (8.42%) with Ristova®. At 2 years, progression-free survival (PFS) 69% [hazard ratio (HR), 1.16; 95% CI, 0.80-1.67], overall survival (OS) 78.7% (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.78-1.86), response rates, quality of life (QoL), and overall safety in both the cohorts were comparable. The best overall response rate (BORR) at 6 months was comparable with no statistically significant differences between the Reditux™ and the Ristova® cohorts (89.2% vs. 94.3%). In multivariate analysis, BCL-2 and VAS were significant prognostic factors for PFS.

Conclusion

Reditux™ and Ristova® were comparable in real-world setting.

Clinical Trial Registration

ISRCTN registry, identifier (ISRCTN13301166).

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and the subsequent vomiting (CINV) are adverse effects of cancer treatment associated with considerable burden for the patient. CINV has a significant negative impact on quality of life. The consequent loss of fluids and electrolytes can lead to impaired renal function or weight loss, which may lead to hospitalization. If CINV later results in anticipatory vomiting, this complicates both CINV prophylaxis and further chemotherapy, which can endanger the continuation of cancer treatment. The introduction of high-dose dexamethasone as well as 5‑HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists has led to a significant improvement of CINV prophylaxis since the 1990s. Recommendations on CINV prophylaxis are in available in guidelines. Adherence to these guidelines results in better outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings.

METHODS

A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained.

RESULTS

NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125.

CONCLUSION

By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study

Background

The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

Methods

Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis.

Results

In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL.

Conclusion

Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Quality of Life Effects of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prevention: Real-World Evidence in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Anthracycline-Cyclophosphamide-Based Chemotherapy

Introduction

In a prospective non-interventional study involving 2,173 patients, we showed that use of the oral fixed combination of netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy (Ctx)-induced nausea and vomiting has beneficial effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with various types of cancers receiving highly or moderately emetogenic Ctx. Here, we report on the effects on QoL, effectiveness, and tolerability of NEPA in patients with breast cancer exposed to anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based Ctx.

Methods

This is a post hoc subanalysis of a prospective non-interventional study in 1,197 patients with breast cancer receiving up to 3 cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide and NEPA. NEPA administration was per the summary of product characteristics.

Results

In cycle 1 of Ctx, a large proportion of patients (84%) reported "no impact on daily life" (NIDL) due to vomiting; 53% of patients reported NIDL due to nausea. The complete response rate was 86/88/81% in the acute/delayed/overall phase in cycle 1, and NEPA was well tolerated throughout the study.

Conclusion

The real-world beneficial effects of NEPA prophylaxis on QoL were confirmed for patients with breast cancer receiving AC. NEPA was effective with a good safety profile in this patient population in clinical practice.

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Quality of Life Associated with Nausea and Vomiting from Anthracycline-Based Chemotherapy: A Pooled Data Analysis from Three Prospective Trials

BACKGROUND

There is limited work on the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on quality of life (QoL) in adriamycin-cyclophosphamide (AC)-treated patients with breast cancer. The objectives of the study were the following: (a) to confirm if symptoms of CINV led to lower QoL during AC; (b) to evaluate the pattern of changes in patients' QoL during multiple cycles of AC; and (c) to assess if the QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent cycles of AC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a secondary pooled data analysis that included 303 Chinese patients with breast cancer who received 1,177 cycles of adjuvant AC in three prospective antiemetic studies. QoL data were based on Functional Living Index-emesis (FLIE) scored over three to four AC cycles. CINV symptoms assessed included "no significant nausea" (NSN), "significant nausea" (SN), "no vomiting" (NoV), "vomiting" (V), and complete response (CR).

RESULTS

Across all AC cycles, the mean scores for the FLIE nausea domain for patients who experienced NSN versus SN were 10.92 versus 53.92, respectively (p < .0001), with lower scores indicating better QoL; the mean scores for the FLIE vomiting domain for patients who experienced NoV versus V were 1.44 versus 19.11, respectively (p < .0001), with similar results across subsequent cycles. Analysis of the effect of the QoL in cycle 1 on the QoL of subsequent cycles revealed the following: for the nausea domain, among patients who had cycle 1 FLIE scores ≥ versus < the mean, the corresponding scores in cycle 2 were 6.87 versus 36.71 (p < .0001); whereas those for cycle 3 were 7.07 versus 36.87 (p < .0001); and those for cycle 4 were 5.92 versus 21.48 (p < .0001). Similar findings were observed for the vomiting domain. Netupitant + palonosetron- or aprepitant/olanzapine-based antiemetics had significantly better QoL outcomes.

CONCLUSION

CINV had a significant impact on the QoL of patients with breast cancer treated with AC over multiple cycles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In this post-hoc analysis of three prospective studies on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), quality of life (QoL) using contemporary antiemetic regimens in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) was evaluated. During the first and subsequent AC cycles, QoL was significantly better for patients who did not experience vomiting or significant nausea. QoL in an earlier cycle affected the QoL in subsequent AC cycles. Furthermore, recent regimens involving olanzapine/aprepitant or netupitant-palonosetron were associated with a positive impact in QoL. Antiemetic guideline-consistent practice and higher clinician awareness of the impact of CINV on QoL can further mitigate the negative effects of CINV on QoL.

Netupitant/Palonosetron: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo^®), available in oral and intravenous (IV) formulations, is a fixed-dose combination of the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist netupitant (or the prodrug, fosnetupitant, in the IV formulation) and the second-generation serotonin 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist palonosetron. Administered as a single dose, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron (in combination with dexamethasone) is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults. In clinical trials, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron plus dexamethasone was associated with high complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute, delayed and overall phases in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with efficacy maintained over multiple cycles. Further, oral netupitant/palonosetron was found to be superior to palonosetron and non-inferior to aprepitant plus granisetron in preventing CINV in individual trials. Both the oral and IV formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. The fixed-dose combination is concordant with guideline recommendations and provides a simple and convenient option for prophylaxis against acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃ ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT₃ RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK₁ RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK₁ RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK₁ ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK₁ RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK₁ RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Practice Patterns for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Antiemetic Guideline Adherence Based on Real-World Prescribing Data

BACKGROUND

Guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)- and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)-based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin.

METHODS

The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 45,324 chemotherapy-treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK1 RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin-, AC-, and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification.

CONCLUSION

Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC-/carboplatin-based treatments receiving guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control.

Single-dose netupitant/palonosetron versus 3-day aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pooled analysis

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p < 0.05) and 78.4 versus 75.0% during the acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. Conclusion: Oral NEPA administered on day 1 was more effective than a 3-day APR regimen in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin.

Phase 3 Study of Palonosetron IV Infusion Vs. IV Bolus for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis After Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

CONTEXT

Palonosetron (PALO) is one of the two active components of NEPA, the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (IV) and PALO. To increase the convenience of NEPA administration, especially for patients with swallowing difficulties, an IV NEPA formulation has been developed, where PALO is administered as a 30-minute infusion instead of the approved 30-second bolus.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the PALO component used in IV NEPA.

METHODS

Noninferiority, double-blind, and randomized Phase 3 trial in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with cancer requiring highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of PALO 0.25 mg administered IV either as a 30-minute infusion or as a 30-second bolus before highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of the 30-minute infusion vs. 30-second bolus in terms of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints were CR in the delayed and overall phases and no emesis and no rescue medication in all phases. Safety was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Overall, 440 patients received study treatment. In the infusion group, 186 (82.7%) patients reported CR in the acute phase vs. 186 (86.5%) patients in the bolus group, demonstrating the noninferiority of PALO infusion vs. bolus (P < 0.001). Secondary endpoints showed similar results between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

PALO 0.25-mg 30-minute IV infusion was noninferior to 30-second IV bolus in terms of CR rate in the acute phase. These results support the use of PALO 0.25 mg as a component of IV NEPA.